A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FOLIA SOCIOLOGICA 22, 1991
Part III
COMMUNITY BONDS ANO INSTITUTIONS
Zdzisława Kawka, Ewa Rokicka
COMMUNITY TIES AND EDU CATIONAL FUNCTIO N OF SCHOOL
The diversity of relationships between people and different levels at which the links between them operate leads s o c i o l o -gists to search not only for formal (structural) similarities within their framework. L e t ’s think in this article whether we can find features in common between the family and the school two social structures playing a key role in socioe ducat ional p r o -cess. Does the fact that they both share the same aim bring them together? A family, pro vidi ng that it functions as a c o m -munity, is a home for its members. Does the " s c h o o l ” also c o n
-tain the elements found within the "home-c ommun ity"? Does it allow the possibility of realizing the man ifol d n ee ds? Does it stimulate sat isfy ing social con tact s? Does it create an a p p r o -priate framework for activities especially for the rea liza tion of its educational function?
If we want to answer these que stio ns we should first consider the term "ho me-community* trying to find its general sociolo* gical meaning and then search for common features of home and s c h o o l .
The results of empirical investigations show that the term "home" most often connotes "family life" which is still one of the most highly valued social groupings. The world wid e e x i stence of family ties promotes home as the object of m a n ’s d e -sires, highly esteemed in almost all types of societies.
em-phasis upon, the different elements which comprise family life. The most important of these are the various needs of its in-dividual members, which govern the workings of the family. Equipped with material goods and the opportunity for action the family becomes the vehicle for the fulfilment principally of the psychological needs of its members for such things as security, emotional understanding, affiliation and the free expression of the ego.
A second meaning of the term "home" refers to its physical dimension. The differences in connotation referred to here are evident in the use of two terms in English "home" and "house" and also in German "helm" and "haus" (a dif ferentiation which is not present in Polish). These different con notations are, h o w -ever, only partly separable. The home as a phisical structure constitutes the framework for family life. In this respect the formal and concrete aspects of the family as an institution b e -come important. Thus the term, in its narrow sense, Indicates a lodging place and its standards and, in its wider: the material status of a family in terms of such things as household p o s s e s -sions, clothing, food and other items.
The complexity and diversity of the elements which go to create a "home" make it difficult to define this term precisely and explicitly. In this article we have assumed that the members of a family will use the term "home" from a shared acceptance of the social ties end organisational features it presupposes [ T r a w i r t s k a , 1977 ].
Thus a home is a social group or institution in which the existent human relationships emotionally satisfy its members, where their needs are both generated and met, and where a variety of different activities or operations take place. Therefore it is apparent that the home has both a physical and a spiritual side and should not be considered exclusively in terms of its ideological and non-material sig nificance following S. Ossowski who defined it as: a correlation of psychological attitudes which together constitute the culture heritage [ O s s o w s k i , 1967]. According to his definition, the term "home" refers only to common feelings, ideas and values, inherited throughout the
course of history, and to the psychological links binding members of one community.
It seems likely that phrases such as: "we are really our.- selves at home", "this is our own s p a c e “ , "we create reality and ourselves", "we are open", we feel secure arise, on the one hand from the int ernalization of rules and values and a strong identification with them, and, on the other, from the material conditions experienced by the group or institution. Thus the term "home" signifies something of valuable, manifold . and diverse s o -cial content. The material and structural elements external to the individual dre bound up with his own desires and s e l f e x -pression. Actions promoted by a shared experience of certain material conditions are interwoven with spo ntaneous and emotional reactions arising from personal interaction.
It is difficult to answer the question about common features of school and "community-home" in sociological sense since the term "school" is a generalized abstraction. It is a general term coverning schools of different types and levels both now and in times past. Hence, using the term "school" we employ a sort of notional abbreviation. In our considerations school denotes a group or institution, which in addition to the family c o n s t i -tutes a basic and large component of young persons Social sphere. Its characteristics are important for us in respect oi the role it plays in the process of socialization, and also from the point of view of the teacher attempting to fulfil his pro-fessional goal (that is of passing on knowledge).
One of the fundamental features of “the home" in its s o -ciological sense is the bond which joins its members. This bond is present both in a family and at school. It is created and strenghtened through everyday contacts and direct encounters. This "bond" is man ifes ted by an i n d i v i d u a l ’s awareness of unity, that is of having something in common with other individuals and of distinction that is by being somehow apart from other groups. As human relations are based on facetoface contacts the m e -chanisms of social control operates both in the family and at school, and therefore in both cases it is difficult to isolate oneself or become anonymous. The domination of physical and formal
ties in a family or school as well as a system of dependences between individuals allow the two groups to lose the features of a “home-community" and acquire the characteristics of an "instit u-tio n-associau-tion” .
If we assume that another property of the home is common life then a community tie will be characteristic of those groups with a widespread influence in the lives of their members. A s s o c i a -tions on the other hand bring their members together only in certain spheres of their activity [ R y b i c k i , 1979]. The opposition of communities and ass ociations in respect of group life is not an arbitrary one, and therefore particular types of families and schools can be placed at different points on the scale. For example a school, which as result of definite aims, joins teachers and pupils only in some fields of their social activity and engages only a part of their per sonality will be an "association" or even only a "one-tie group". Following the model of 3. H. Pestalozzi and 3. F. Herbert the introduction of a larger range of interests which go beyond the framework of the traditional roles of teacher and pupil changes a "school-associa- tion" into a community.
In t o d a y ’s world we observe the opposite tendency i.e. a shift in the organization of social life from communities to ass o c i a -tions. This process taking place in many groups including schools does not concern the family which prunanly constitutes a c o m -munity. Although its influence does not extend to all • aspects of the life of its members, it is still based on personal ties, and not on physical goods.
The effectiveness of a school in the realm of education is directly dependent upon the presence of "community-type" bonds which join one individual to another. The weakining of personal ties and a regard for the individual render educational processes less effective. The more, a school loses its features of a home-community, the less effective in the process of education
it is.
If we examine past and present forms of the school we will observe that it is a "home-community" for pupils and teachers only when its main goal resulting from macrostructural dependences i.e. its rules aims or values imposed upon it from outside by
superior groups (such as the Government) is the training of the character of its pupils. School- commu nitie s separate children and young people from a family group and train them to be a member of a non-family group; a class, caste, country or nation. They neither continue nor complete the familial education, they totally negate it. The school will have an active influence in most of the fields of action and almost the whole persona lity of teachers and pupils. They are communities con cern ed wit h "living" and not only a place for teaching and learning. Even though the tie b e -tween teachers and pupils is not a natural one ori gin a t i n g from birth or of the character of an ass ociation bas ed on free choice hut is rather imposed containing the element of pressure, it does not determine the character of the "school-community". If formal and physical elements dominate, a school cha nges into an institution degrading the personality. If it becomes a social group of teachers and young people then it effecti vely trains the personality, preparing pupils for their future roles in s o -ciety according to the demands of superior groups on whose behalf they act. "A school-community" (of which M a k a r e n k o ’s communes are the best example) consciously uses the group as an e d u c a -tional tool contrary to a family community w hi ch plays an imp ort-ant educational role but in the larger process of socialization. "A sch ool-association" dis crib ed by 3. C h a ł a s i ń s k i [ 1 9 6 9 ] as a "techno-teaching" one has a dif fere nt social context It is a specialized group focusing its interests exclusi vely on the teaching of definite skills. It engages only part of the p er sonality of pupils and teachers and (placed beside the family) plays only a subsidiary and complementary role in the process of youth education. In the case of rural societies it strengthens the ties with family and local inhabitants and in the case of urban societies- with the state. It prepares an individual for a ready -made place in the society outside the school gate [ С h a- ł a s i ń s k i , 1969]. Its graduates are given social roles strictly dependent on the type of school and the p er iod of at-tendance. Thus such a group mainly functions as a stabilizer of social order (in support of the status quo) i.e. it rather reproduces the existing structures than cha nges them.
effectiveness of school education although the period of learning becomes longer and longer. As a result young people are not well- -adopted to life in society, showing a resistence towards ac-cepting existing social relations and principles of coexistence. [ A d a m s k i , 1976]. This is why the latest criticism of
school referring to the "school crisis" con centrates on fulfil-ment of the s c h o o l ’s academic function. Didactics clearly takes precedence over the s c h o o l ’s caring and soc ializing functions. Education is bound up in red tape. The realization of the e d u c a -tional function is neither promoted by the working conditions nor by the training of teachers, nor by the selection of t ea ch-ers, often referred to as a "ne gati ve - s e l e c t i o n " . Large c o n temporary schools (usually with a few hundred pupils) where a f t -er a year specialist- teach-ers most often do pot rememb-er the /names of their pupils, can be compared to plants producing mass sta ndardized personalities equipped with a similar range of skills and knowledge. A school like that as thu basic social milieu of young people according to many pedagogues rather creates problems than solves them [Youth, Transmision to Adulthood, 1978]. A secondary, unintentional effect of the large bureacratic school is the growing influence of youth culture on soc ia l i z a -tion processes. Grouping a large number of pupils divided into agedependent classes facilitates the formation of a quite se p a rate world for young people. Simultaneously growing spe c i a l i z a -tion in teaching (subject division) weakens the influence and control of teachers. Pupils will work effecively and obey the rules teachers impose on them providing their group codes call for the same behaviour. Hence, It Is especially Important today, when the Invasion of youth culture can be observed at schools, to create an educational system Interesting for the pupils, and group rules which support s c h o o l ’s education. One of the symptoms of crisis of contemporary school Is a growing reluctance of children and young people to this institution. The causes of the crisis lie, among other things, in changes of cultural s u p e r -structure of modern societies i.e. mainly in the principles of evaluating the relation between individual and society. In t ra-ditional societies norms of obligation and subordination of in-dividuals to group were generally obeyed. These norms were also
universally accepted in case of school and com pulsory school attendance.
Nowadays it is emotional identity and not sense of duty which is highly valued. Therefore obligatory school att enda nce is felt as a pressure. This inadequacy between the character of c o n -temporary school and social expectations implies once more the need of searching new, institutional form of school. New ideas and new social contents must result in creatio n of new i n s t i t u -tions. Modification of the past structures brings only partial or no results.
Therefore the idea of more natural forms of edu cati on copying family patterns and enabling the formation of communi ties within schools, are still much alive iri pedagogics. Ori gina ted by Cecil fieddie and taken up in England by Neill, Curre and Dora Russel and in Germany by H. Lietz, Wyneken and Geheeb, this idea is still current.
Ihost' changes which have turned today's school into a highly formal and bureacratlc institution dominated by the "mania of assessment are also illustrated by the altered role and function of a teacher [ A t t e s l a n d e r , 1971]. It is known that the méthodes of fulfilling a role that is behaviour imposed on in-dividuals by the institution they work for, depend among other things on the nature and character of the ins titution and on the possibilities and means the institutions provide for its members [ B u c h e r , S t e r l i n g , 1977; B e r g e r , L u с k m a n, 1967]. It is usually k n o wled ge not e d u cati on in its broad sociological sense that det ermi nes the ess enti al f u n c -tion of today's school as well as ac-tions and role of a teacher. First of all the theoretical and actual model of a teacher ( c o n -firmed by the research data) stresses the p r e e m i n c e kno wled ge and methodical skills. The role of a teacher is more and more r e -stricted to the transfering of knowledge. The teacher is mainly the object of did acti cs and the pup ils - its subject. The lack of structural bal ance in the school that is in the int erac tion of the two p a r t i es teac her and pupil often mea ns that the r e a -lization of the s c h o o l ’s hig hest goals, that is e d u c a t i o n in its widest sense of its m em bers is often limited to the dry acq uain tance of knowledge. The relations t ea cher -pupi l are
do-min ated by techno-intellectual activities con nected with the realization of didactic and not educational aims. The pupils in-tellectual development seems more important than his emotional one. Knowledge, however, does not necesserily mean virtue, and passing on facts does not mean* that school has succeeded i.e. has truly prepared the younger generation for their life outside school life. The t e a c h e r ’s inherent mot ivat ion to work derived from his realization of the possibility of bui lding a c h i l d ’s character according to a socially accepted model is very rarely found.
Even if it is present, it cannot be given on entirely free rein because of the structural features of a school, its methods of o p p erat ion and so on. The teaching pro fess ion seems a t t r a c -tive for those within it (according to our inv estigations) b e -cause it con sists of a small number of hours wor king directly with young people and much additional free time in the form of holidays, at Christmas, Easter and during the summer. This e x -trinsic mot ivat ion for action limited by orders and control in the case of teachers, and compulsory attendance in the case of pupils, additionally limits the possibility of school existing as a home in the sociological sense.
Pupils and teachers are not united through partici patio n in the same ins titu tion (that is the school) and by common goals. School education, induced by social req uire ments is often r e -str icte d to f a r mal- admin i-stra tive actions. Young people adapt themselves to the outside regime imposed by the school or t ea ch-er and are even sometimes said to be "wellbehaved". This, h o w ever, gives rise to a double morality in the pup ils a quite d i f ferent p at tern of behaviour and values at school from that o u t -side it. The rea liza tion of individual and group aim through common actions of the group members cer tainly leads to the for-mation of those ties at school which R. K. M e r t о n [ 1 9 8 2 ] has called org aniz atioh ally induced ties, The ties cre ated at school do not link the two basic parties in the school struc- ture-te acher s and pupils-but ope rate only wit hin the structures themselves.
We shall now try to summarize our considerations. The q u e s -tion of whe ther t o d a y ’s school can func-tion as a home for
teach-ers and pupils i.e. make them "feel free" and "in their own space" must be answered wi'th the negative. Mor e often than not a c o n -temporary school is not the place where teachers and pupils feel good. The sphere in which they can feel free is con f i n e d to their interests for pupils its their voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n in clubs, and other extra-c urric ular activities. Institutional pressure- -reduced by various factors like a love for ones pro f e s s i o n and the incentive contacts within age groups goes bey ond eve ryth ing else in pla cing the school far from "the hom e-co mmuni ty". To a greater and greater extend this pressure affects the a u t h e n t -ic and spo ntan eous beh avio urs of teacher and pupils, and l i -mits the number of needs which can be met wit hin the s c h o o l ’s f r a m e w o r k .
T o d a y ’s school neither liberates pos itive emo tion al m o t i v a -tion for the p ar tici patio n in it nor cre ates strong ties between teachers and pupils. The school p o p ulat ion is divided according to the scheme: them and us. All through history school has tlways been a kind of ass ociation rarely a home-community. Shaped by external social forces and con trol led by them, school is never able to become a home for its members. The m o v emen t whi ch tried to make the school a kind of h om e-co mmuni ty did not gain strength and remained only exp erim ental in its operations. Nev erth eless a highly bur eacr atic school and its evo luti on towards bei ng an ass ocia tion will have further neg ative con se q u e n c e s even in the realization of didactic aims. Already t o d a y ’s school is said to lack the general concept of education.
If school cannot possibly become "home-c ommun ity" outright it is necessary to make it less formal. Its str uctu ral features must be cha nged so that the sec ondary soc i a l i z a t i o n pro cess es within its framework bring the incorporation of wilder e d u c a -tional act ivit ies into the work of teachers. Only then will the gap between the theoretical and actuel functions of the school be narrowed.
The changes at school should be e n c oura ged by outside social fort.es such as the state and the min istr y of e d u cati on and c*;i tainly this is not a matter of pas sing a new law but of c o n
-tinu,us search for the o pt imum models of f u n ctio ning for a school undtji exi stin g social conditions. These c o n diti ons are def ined
by the transformation of position and role of individual in s o -cial life, and it is there where today more than ever he looks for his emotional identity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A d a m s k i W., 1976, Młodzież i społeczeństwo, Warszawa. A t t e s l a n d e r P., 1971, Die letzten läge der Gegenwart
oder das Al i b i - S y n d r o m , Bern-Miinchen-Wien.
B e r g e r P . L . , L u c k m a n T., 1967, The Social C o n -struction, Penquin, Harmondsworth.
B ü c h e r R., S t e r l i n g J. G., 1977, Becoming P r o -fessional, Sage Publication, London.
C h a ł a s i ń s k i 3., 1969, Społeczeństwo i wychowanie, Warszawa.
Youth, Transition to Adulthood, 1978, Washington DC.
M e r t o n R. K., 1982, Teoria socjologiczna i struktura spo-łeczna, Warszawa.
O s s o w s k i S., 1967, Analiza socjologiczna pojęcia o j c z y -zna, [w: ] Ozieła, t. III, Warszawa.
R y b i c k i R., 1979, Struktura świata społecznego, W a r -szawa.
T r a w i ń s k a M., 1977, Bariery aałżeńs kiego sukcesu, W a r -szawa .
Zdzisława Kawka, Ewa Rokicka
Wiązi WS Pû'lNOTOWE I FUNKC3A WYCHOWAWCZA s z k o ł y
Artykuł podejmuje problem charakteru więzi tworzonych w sz k o -le z punktu widzenia jej zadań wychowawczych i dydaktycznych. Szkoła stanowiąca obok domu - wspólnoty najważniejszą instytucję socjalizującą musi spełniać określane warunki, aby proces ( so-cjalizacji) wychowania był zgodny z założonymi oczekiwaniami. Perspektywa historycznosocjologiczna zastosowana w artykule p o -zwala postawić tezę, że warunkiem tyra jest m. in. wspólnotowy
cha-rakter więzi funkcjonujących w szkole. Tymczasem szkoła w s p ó ł -czesna przybiera coraz bardziej charakter zrzeszenia co ogranicza możliwość w yp ełni ani» zadart wychowawczych, a także dyd akty cznyc h przez tę instytucję. Więzi występujące w szkole współcz esnej m a ją w większości charakter rzeczowy a nauczyciele i ucz niow ie t w o -rzą dość wyraźnie oddzielone zbiorowości poł ączo ne wewnętrznymi, rzadko krzyżującymi się więziami pozytywnymi, w rezultacie szkoła współczesna nie wyzwala pozytywnej, emocjonalnej motywacji do uczestnictwa w n i e j r coraz bardziej ogranicza sferę a u t e n t y c z n o -ści i spontaniczno-ści zachowań, ograniczając również sferę p o -trzeb, które mogą być w jej ramach zaspokajane.
Z tego punktu widzenia nie zbęd nym wydaje Się przynaj mniej c z ę -ściowe odf ormalizowanie szkoły. Konsekwencją takich zmian s t r u k turalnych byłoby poszerzenie ról nau czyc ielsk ich o funkcje w y -chowawcze i wzrost poczucia podmiotowości u uczniów.
